In a world gone morning-glory crazy

There’s a lot to deal with today that we didn’t have to worry about so many years ago. Look at the profusion of information available on the Internet — good or ill though it may be. Try separating truth from fiction in a cyber-world that caters as much to the ignorant as the brilliant, walking that tightrope stretched between mundane tripe and dangerous lies, spreading like a virus through social media. The world is not all running-naked-down-the-street crazy, but I’d say it’s more morning-glory crazy. Have you ever seen a dog become agitated and disoriented for no clear reason? Maybe he has the tremors, the shakes, and has lots of gastrointestinal distress? You might truly be puzzled unless you know he helped himself to some morning glory flowers and seeds. The plant contains lysergic acid, which causes this ill effect in canines. I went to UNC in the ‘60s, and I suspect there was more than a bit of morning glory ingesting going on around me. Had I been a better entrepreneur, I could have harvested the pesky morning glories that choked the fencelines and hedgerows around the house and taken it back to campus where I could have made a tidy profit selling the flowers to the girls to wear in their hair in the early morning cool and the seeds to the hippie dudes at anti-capitalism rallies. Hey, opportunity doesn’t timidly rap at your door, it’s a steady, full-blown constant beat-down. Lots of things in this world make us loco. B.I. (Before Internet), we had newspapers. People would read the front page, believe the stories or not, then move on to important stuff like sports or comics. If they read something they didn’t like or believe, they’d bring up the topic at the barber shop or beauty salon, a discussion would rage, and they’d go home nicely groomed and no worse for the wear. They’d spend their spare time talking to their kids or spouse and not in front of a computer screen. If it were an egregious or scandalous story, it might come up at church or school or in the workplace. You might see letters to the editor damning or defending the story. A majority of the people would voice no concern in public. Sure, they’d complain to their relatives or at lodge meetings, but to cause a groundswell of opinion took quite a bit of reasoned discussion and a majority agreement that some action ought to be taken. Today, you can take to the computer anonymously and spew your perversity with a clear conscience. You can put out a story that cat hair cures cancer and it will circle the planet in a cyber-blink and be passed along as gospel. No double checking facts, just amazement over the healing qualities of cat hair and a slam at the “lamestream media” for not alerting people long ago that Mister Fluffikins was such a medical wunderkitty. I have friends who send me stuff that is specifically marked, “I don’t know if this is true, but….” If I had reporters who wrote unfounded crap like that 40 years ago, I would have fired them. I once had a reporter who put some outrageous “fact” in a story. When I confronted him, he didn’t admit his shortcoming as a reporter, rather saying, “You know, I didn’t think that sounded right.” I had a come-to-Jesus moment with him over this cavalier attitude. I’d like to say he mended his ways and went on to win a Pulitzer, but he eventually misspelled, misread and misinterpreted himself out of work and is probably a big noise in politics today. Today, he’d bypass the journalism curriculum, have his own blog and be a respected commentator of the American scene. Facts would be inconvenient. A few days ago the president appeared in the rain while a Marine held an umbrella over his head. In the past, it would have been a minor stone in the political boot, a broken shoelace. When I saw the photo I knew, instinctively, that it would cause an uproar. How did I know? Because the people who hate the president really hate him and the people who like him really like him, and there’s a whole cyber universe to accommodate your brand of outrage. Sure enough, it’s become “Umbrella-gate” and if you type “Umbrella-gate” into an Internet search engine, you’ll get nearly a million hits. This is morning-glory crazy. President Obama ought not to depend on a Marine for rain protection, one side says. Oh, but someone once held an umbrella over Ronald Reagan one time, the other side counters. And blah, blah, blah, the sheep on both sides of the pen bleat. Was it smart? No. Could it have been handled differently? Yes. Is it a reason to impeach? In a world in which we can’t even agree over the meaning of the verb “is,” that’s anyone’s opinion. If you have ever heard the word “sociocracy,” you may know it’s a political structure based on an idea that equal individuals can reason together until a decision is reached with which everyone is satisfied. If you never heard of the word sociocracy, that’s OK. It’d never work in America anyway as long as there are motes and beams blinding our eyes.

Jay Ashley is managing editor of the Times-News. He’s prefers his morning glories at jashley@thetimesnews.com